First off, only someone completely unfamiliar with the political landscape in the U.S. would suggest that the country is "divided 50/50 on politics." That could not be farther from the truth.

Secondly, I love how when people claim that CEOs/actors/whoever should "stay out of politics" that they don't even realize the irony in a statement like that. What gives YOU the right to tell people what to do, or what certain people should do? Here's one for you:

I think YOU should stay out of commenting on politics. How is that?

Tim Cook, you, I, and everyone else has as much right (and often responsibility) to comment on whatever situation is at hand. This concept that keyboard warriors get to decide who should shut up and who shouldn't is so absurdly narcissistic that it is practically bewildering (it would be, but I'm so used to it that it's gone from angering to bewildering to amusing for the most part these days).

Finally, Tim Cook is an important voice on this issue because he is the CEO of one of the most important and most valuable companies in the world. If the CEO of Apple, of all people, shouldn't be commenting on a bill that has to do with EMPLOYMENT, then who the frack should be?!

Then you should be fine if Tim Cook took a stance on a political issue that you don't like, no matter if you own stock or not.

So gay people are fine in the workplace as long as they aren't noticeably gay?

Exactly.

I once got a gay person fired, because they were extremely annoying and not very professional. I don't care about people's sexual orientation, as long as they keep it away from the workplace. Otherwise it becomes a distraction. I'm not interested in people's emotional problems and issues, and they should keep that crap at home where it belongs.

I once got a gay person fired, because they were extremely annoying and not very professional. I don't care about people's sexual orientation, as long as they keep it away from the workplace. Otherwise it becomes a distraction. I'm not interested in people's emotional problems and issues, and they should keep that crap at home where it belongs.

As long as you realise that what you've said there has nothing to do with the person being gay, or "wearing it on their sleeve", and everything to do with bringing problems to work and being disruptive. Straight people, even *gasp* straight white men, can do exactly the same thing.

That is precisely why I'd rather he stays out of these sorts of issues. I want no piece of corporate power in social and public policy realms.

Cook is an unelected person who is responsible to his shareholders, and not to society-at-large. We have an elected government to deal with the wishes and imperatives of the latter.

The nexus between business and government always troubles me, whether it's from the Right (Koch) or the Left (Cook), or from a business I like and admire (Apple) or one about which I couldn't care less (e.g., defense).

As long as you realise that what you've said there has nothing to do with the person being gay, or "wearing it on their sleeve", and everything to do with bringing problems to work and being disruptive. Straight people, even *gasp* straight white men, can do exactly the same thing.

Sure, I agree that straight people and their issues can also be distracting, and in those cases, they should also be fired.

I'm not going to go into any detail, but the gay person that I was referring to was guilty of sexual harassment, and that's why they got the boot. Of course, the same rules should equally apply to a straight person if they are sexually harassing somebody in the workplace.

Mr. Cook, vote, donate and advocate (lobby) as you wish on on your own time, quietly.

What would be the point of lobbying quietly? Unless you didn't want to be heard of course, in which case, why lobby at all?

In this case, Cook makes an incredibly important point: ending discrimination is good - not only for the people who are no longer discriminated against, but also for their employers and then, by extension for everyone else as a more successful company can only be a positive thing for the economy in which it operates. People opposed to such non-discrimination laws are, effectively, seeking real actual harm for the economy which supports them. And that is distinctly illogical and counterproductive.

Then you should be fine if Tim Cook took a stance on a political issue that you don't like, no matter if you own stock or not.

Umm, huh? I'm pretty sure that there are numerous things on which Tim Cook and I would disagree.

But this is pretty damned clear as it's a question of equality. And anyone who is against equality is someone with whom I don't simply disagree. That person is someone for whom I have no respect.

However, none of that matters here. The point is, Tim Cook is a U.S. citizen. He is entitled to voice his opinion on whatever matter he wishes. Just like you. Just like me. Just like everyone else. And as I said, the fact that he is the CEO of one of the most important, most valuable corporations in the world would make him a perfect person to comment on a bill that affects EMPLOYMENT and the WORKPLACE.

Did you even bother to read the piece? Did you read his reasoning? Do you have any counter-arguments? Or are you just telling him to shut the $#%& up?

This is cute, but this is also why what he wrote was an opinion piece.

I guess you're having trouble understanding what I wrote, so let me repeat: I don't want corporate power -- whether from the Left or the Right, whether from businesses I like or don't like -- influencing government. That is my opinion.

Got it?

Also, I understand that your opinion is, that's OK. So move along and stop beating it to death.....

I am personally for hiring people no mater who that are, as long as they can do the job being hired for. If they are going to pass the law saying you can not discriminate on any ground they also have to say it is not okay to hire people base on who they are as well like affirmative action. Today companies hire people to fill quota that the government has set a long time ago so people get hire because they can do the job but because the meet a specific hiring criteria.

I guess you're having trouble understanding what I wrote, so let me repeat: I don't want corporate power -- whether from the Left or the Right, whether from businesses I like or don't like -- influencing government. That is my opinion.

Got it?

Also, I understand that your opinion is, that's OK. So move along and stop beating it to death.....

I'm pretty sure everyone is in agreement with what he said in the piece so there's no need to influence anyone...including the government...got it? He's just agreeing with the act..

"Being in power is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't." - Margaret Thatcher

I'm perfectly "with" the context. Freedom from employment discrimination when based on sexual preference is not in your Constitution. Nor is freedom from employment discrimination based on gender, for that matter.

For you to suggest that the law is not needed because it is covered by the Constitution is patently false.

I once got a gay person fired, because they were extremely annoying and not very professional. I don't care about people's sexual orientation, as long as they keep it away from the workplace. Otherwise it becomes a distraction. I'm not interested in people's emotional problems and issues, and they should keep that crap at home where it belongs.

It probably would have been better to just say you got someone fired because they "were extremely annoying and not very professional" But then again it is not grounds to fire someone because their personally does not match what you like, Firing someone because they are not doing their job is a better thing, but it is actually hard to fire someone for that these days. Companies choose to lay someone off than fire them for non-performance. Less of a legal issue.

To your point, I had to discipline a person who worked for me since he was harassing others who worked with him due to his religious belief. I simply asked him to keep his personal stuff personal and not share it with others since it was unwanted. Need less to say you can not harass someone due to their religious beliefs but they can harass you because of your lack of belief since his beliefs are protected.

I don't agree with this. Businesses should be allowed to hire whomever they please and discrimination should be allowed.

If I'm hiring somebody, I should be allowed to discriminate based on whatever factors I deem to be important. It's my money after all.

If somebody is a nutjob, then I don't want them working for me.

If somebody is a religious wacko, then I don't want them working for me.

If I'm looking for a female secretary, then only females will be allowed to apply.

If somebody is a political extremist (like a liberal), then I don't want them working for me.

If somebody is extremely obese, then I don't want them working for me.

People looking to hire potential employees should be able to weed out people who are not fit for the job.

Makes sense, except the liberal label because there are at least as many extremists on the conservative side. Other than that, I tend to agree, however, with one important distinction. In each of your conditions, you begin with '"if I'm hiring..." With this phrase the connotation is that it is a small business and the person would be working directly for you, the owner. Of course you are going to look for someone who is compatible, but a non-discriminating employment bill would be generally applied to large corporations that have an HR department and the people being hired are assigned to a position that their coworkers have no say in. If department managers promote with discriminatory considerations, that could be a violation of the proposed law, but no one expects a small business owner to not have the authority to hire or fire anyone he/she wants to.

First off, only someone completely unfamiliar with the political landscape in the U.S. would suggest that the country is "divided 50/50 on politics." That could not be farther from the truth.

Secondly, I love how when people claim that CEOs/actors/whoever should "stay out of politics" that they don't even realize the irony in a statement like that. What gives YOU the right to tell people what to do, or what certain people should do? Here's one for you:

I think YOU should stay out of commenting on politics. How is that?

Tim Cook, you, I, and everyone else has as much right (and often responsibility) to comment on whatever situation is at hand. This concept that keyboard warriors get to decide who should shut up and who shouldn't is so absurdly narcissistic that it is practically bewildering (it would be, but I'm so used to it that it's gone from angering to bewildering to amusing for the most part these days).

Finally, Tim Cook is an important voice on this issue because he is the CEO of one of the most important and most valuable companies in the world. If the CEO of Apple, of all people, shouldn't be commenting on a bill that has to do with EMPLOYMENT, then who the frack should be?!

So the US is not generally equally divided on political issues? News to me. How would you describe 'the political landscape' then? And I'm finding your energetically finding irony pretty ironic.

PEOPLE in their capacity as people can say pretty much whatever they want whenever they want and I'll fight right along with you to preserve that right. When you take a job to lead a publicly traded company, in this context, you are no longer PEOPLE. Why? Because Tim Cook, citizen, wouldn't get an OpEd in the Wall Street Journal. I'll concede that Mr. Cook can speak far more authoritatively on business than celebrities that choose to run their political mouths, but as the leader of the brand he should recuse himself from social politics until he is once again just a person like you and me.

Apple is not a social movement or a social change agent. Apple does not vote. Apple does not have a political opinion nor does it take sides. Apple is a business. A business whose business it is to make and sell awesome products to customers regardless of their political beliefs.

Tim Cook was not commenting generally on equality and 'EMPLOYMENT' practices at Apple. He was lobbying for a bill currently before congress. As this bill is mostly political and as he is the leader of the Apple brand, in my opinion his doing so was inappropriate.

If you purposefully draw the line down the middle then anything is equally divided. A more nuanced view would recognise that the is massive division on the right, substantial division on the left, and that left and right is pretty arbitrary and the most centrist left and right probably have more in common with their colleagues across party lines than they do with the more radical elements of their own party. In addition the division on different subjects are very different, different people may agree on social issues, but be totally opposed on economic ones, or they may have identical views on foreign policy, but differ on home policy. It's not a simple left vs right situation, and it rarely is, not in your country or any other.

So no, it is not "generally equally divided". Neither the House, nor the Senate, and certainly not the White House is a 50/50 split.

What would be the point of lobbying quietly? Unless you didn't want to be heard of course, in which case, why lobby at all?

In this case, Cook makes an incredibly important point: ending discrimination is good - not only for the people who are no longer discriminated against, but also for their employers and then, by extension for everyone else as a more successful company can only be a positive thing for the economy in which it operates. People opposed to such non-discrimination laws are, effectively, seeking real actual harm for the economy which supports them. And that is distinctly illogical and counterproductive.

The validity of this bill or the need for one like it is not the issue or the point. The point is whether or not it's OK for someone that is the public face and voice of a publicly traded company, in his capacity as such, to take a public stance on an issue of social politics and lobby for a specific piece of legislation.

He had the legal right to do so and I would not challenge that legal right. I'm also not gonna say it's OK for him to do so just because it's legal. We all make choices in life. Certain jobs and roles call for us to conduct ourselves in a certain way. You know that when you take the job. If you want to sell products to 100% of the market you avoid unnecessarily distracting customers by associating your brand with a social issue that has nothing whatsoever to do with your brand. This goes (or should go) for actors selling movie tickets, athletes selling shoes and CEOs selling computers.

I wonder what Apple's Foxconn workers would be saying about this. Next thing you know Cook will be saying "We do not discriminate against Chinese workers. We pay them the same pittance regardless of who they are."

Umm, huh? I'm pretty sure that there are numerous things on which Tim Cook and I would disagree.

But this is pretty damned clear as it's a question of equality. And anyone who is against equality is someone with whom I don't simply disagree. That person is someone for whom I have no respect.

However, none of that matters here. The point is, Tim Cook is a U.S. citizen. He is entitled to voice his opinion on whatever matter he wishes. Just like you. Just like me. Just like everyone else. And as I said, the fact that he is the CEO of one of the most important, most valuable corporations in the world would make him a perfect person to comment on a bill that affects EMPLOYMENT and the WORKPLACE.

Did you even bother to read the piece? Did you read his reasoning? Do you have any counter-arguments? Or are you just telling him to shut the $#%& up?

Aaron J, I read the piece. I read his reasoning. I don't know why you would assume a person doesn't understand the issues if the person doesn't agree with you. I guess that's the automatic reaction since some can't fathom another point of view, no matter how logical and tempered.

I have worked with and for gay people in the workplace and don't have a problem with anybody as long as they are competent in their job. My concern about "non discrimination legislation" is that it can be turned into reverse discrimination. For example, suppose a gay person is not competent in a job and doesn't get the promotion or gets let go. Then they accuse their boss of discrimination. Won't this law be used to pressure employers to show favoritism toward such people, creating a situation where a person's sexual orientation and not their job skills got them the job? Where does that leave the person who was qualified for the job? Suppose the person who was qualified for the job is gay but they didn't get it because a law that's supposed to protect gay people kept an incompetent gay person in their job end eliminated an opportunity for the competent gay person. What have you just done to the competency level of your staff? Can't you see the mess thus creates for businesses? I fear that this type of legislation only replaces one set of biases with another.Edited by rickwil61 - 11/4/13 at 12:05pm

My concern about "non discrimination legislation" is that it can be turned into reverse discrimination. For example, suppose a gay person is not competent in a job and doesn't get the promotion or gets let go. Then they accuse their boss of discrimination. Won't this law be used to pressure employers to show favoritism toward such people, creating a situation where a person's sexual orientation and not their job skills got them the job?

We already have similar laws in Europe. What you're describing is a non-issue.

I once got a gay person fired, because they were extremely annoying and not very professional. I don't care about people's sexual orientation, as long as they keep it away from the workplace. Otherwise it becomes a distraction. I'm not interested in people's emotional problems and issues, and they should keep that crap at home where it belongs.

I don't see the correlation here. I can be really annoying, and I'm not gay. What you describe sounds more like an issue with the individual.

Given that it's already there in the constitution, why do we need a new bill, let alone an op-ed from a CEO? (The points about TP and shutdown were made purely as an argumentative device).

Your argument would apply to the Civil Rights Act or the Voters' Rights Act as much as it would to ENDA, or anything resembling it. By your logic, the Constitution (post-Civil War amendments) said that blacks and whites were equal. So, why would we need a bill on that subject? Why pass the Civil Rights Act when it's "already there in the Constitution?"

The fact is, what was in the Constitution wasn't sufficiently protecting the rights of those people who were being oppressed. Therefore, Congress and President Johnson saw fit, after a HUGE movement made it all but a done deal, to pass both the Civil Rights Act and the Voters' Right Act. Not only that, but those two bills are the primary reason why the GOP is mostly a regional party, only having any real traction in the old Confederacy. The Democrats who had been pro-segregation left the party, and the South became Republican territory, whereas most everywhere else (except the non-populated plains states) became Democratic territory.

Now, you can either argue that "it's in the Constitution already" (ignoring 200+ years of Supreme Court activity, but that's a different discussion altogether), and then accept as an adjucnt to that argument that there was no reason to pass the Civil Rights Act. Or you can argue that that what is "in the Constitution" rarely matters in actual reality. And that a bill like ENDA is simply a coninuation of the sorts of things like the Civil Rights Act and the Voters' Rights Act.

I have worked with and for gay people in the workplace and don't have a problem with anybody as long as they are competent in their job. My concern about "non discrimination legislation" is that it can be turned into reverse discrimination. For example, suppose a gay person is not competent in a job and doesn't get the promotion or gets let go. Then they accuse their boss of discrimination. Won't this law be used to pressure employers to show favoritism toward such people, creating a situation where a person's sexual orientation and not their job skills got them the job? Where does that leave the person who was qualified for the job? Suppose the person who was qualified for the job is gay but they didn't get it because a law that's supposed to protect gay people kept an incompetent gay person in their job end eliminated an opportunity for the competent gay person. What have you just done to the competency level of your staff? Can't you see the mess thus creates for businesses? I fear that this type of legislation only replaces one set of biases with another.

You're spinning yourself into a tizzy by the end, there. :) Any law can be abused, sure. But the system is already being taken advantage of with gay people being fired for no other reason, and they have no recourse. This won't pressure favoritism any more than age, race and gender have... right or wrong. In fact, it's considerably less pressure since gays account for a much smaller percentage of people than elderly, women or racial minorities. So it would be making a mountain out of a molehill here as far as the "mess" goes.

People should also remember that "straight" is a sexual orientation too, and would also be protected. It eliminates any bias of straight over gay, or vise versa. If anything it should encourage honest companies to keep an accurate employee performance trail, as they should be doing anyway.

We *think he's gay. But he hasn't ever came out and said he was. But I think he was in the right to say this. I hate discrimination of any kind and have been the victim of it many times due to my Crohn's Disease.